Talk:Titus Andronicus/@comment-24984436-20140526152005
I found the presence of Philomel (Ovid's Metamorphoses) ''interesting; Philomel's story seemed to fulfill multiple functions, not only in relation to the actual plot and its characters, but especially to the audience. First of all, the ''Metamorphoses is impossible to categorise; when Ovid completed it, no one had ever seen anything like it. The poem covers all sorts of myths with all sorts of themes, characters, and purposes. In short, it is quite difficult to assign one real genre to the book; it covers almost every ancient genre, from epics to tragedies. One thing, however, is certain: transformation, as the title suggests, links all the narratives to one another. The story of Tereus, Procne and Philomela is often received as the least favourite story of the poem because of the cruel deeds of violence and rape and the helplessness of an innocent character such as Philomela. All these elements seem to be unnecessary in their cruelty, and this often seems to be an opinion about Titus Andronicus, despite its status as a revenge play. I found it interesting to look at the parallels and differences between Philomela's and Lavinia's stories, and how they relate to the entire play. The most obvious function of Philomela's story in the play itself is to help the characters realise what in fact has happened. Act IV.I 41-63 covers Philomela's story; when asked by Titus, the boy informs the characters and the audience about the Metamorphoses, and Titus discovers that Lavinia wants him to read "the tragic tale of Philomel/ And treats of Tereus' treason and his rape/..." Titus and Marcus realise that Lavinia was "ravished and wronged as Philomela was." Although the words "stuprum. Chiron. Demetrius" (Act IV.1 78) seem very self-explanatory, more clarity is created for the other characters. Other than clarity and a sort of "story within a story", this story also serves as a foreshadowing to both the characters and the audience when in Act II.3, Aaron addresses the story of Philomela; "his Philomel must lose her tongue today...", which of course, refers to Lavinia's fate, however, Philomela still has hands to produce the tapestry which reveals the truth about her rapist, Tereus, who is her brother-in-law. The eating of son(s) by royal figures is also occurring, for Tereus eats his son in a meal prepared by his wife. A significant difference between the stories is the relationship between the two leading females. In Philomela's case, she still has her sister, Procne, who chooses her side after Procne finds out what her treacherous Tereus has done. Tamora, although called upon by Lavinia concerning their gender, is Lavinia's enemy who encourages her sons to succomb to their lust. This makes me wonder what Shakespeare is trying to say about his vision of Roman (and perhaps contemporary) views concerning women and their relationships. Also, Philomela seems a strong character to me, despite her physical helplessness during the rape; she uses very strong language against her rapist; ("You cruel barbarian! How could you do such a dreadful deed? Were you wholly unmoved by my father's entreaties and tears of devotion, my sister's longing to see me, respect for my maiden virtue and what you owed to your wife? Nature is overthrown... I'll tell the world of your crime myself) The latter is the first time that it even occurs to Tereus to cut off her tongue. Also, her agency in making the tapestry and her union with her sister to get revenge on Tereus, seems to suggest something more about their power as a female. It seems like these gender issues between the two stories aspire to make the audience think about the differences in time. Lust is central in both stories. Tereus was completely overwhelmed by lust the first time; all he wanted was the innocent Philomela, described as "his prey" and "his virgin prize". She is completely objectified and similes concerning the animal kingdom (lamb vs. wolf, dove vs. hawk) are used to make this clear. This lust and sense of object is very similar to Lavinia's fate, as some fellow students have discussed already. Trust between family members seems more emphasised in Philomela, while honour between family members is especially important to Titus. Issues like race, nationality (Tereus is Thracian, Philomela is from Athens) and barbarism are also covered in Philomela's story, so perhaps Shakespeare is challenging his experienced playgoers, of whom some were familiar to Ovid's works, to think about the differences between Ovid's story and his play as time has passed. I believe that other than the actual reference to Philomela's story with the functions ans parallels discussed, it also serves as another example of transformation (e.g. Lavinia's body) and that it, as it were, could fit into the actual Metamorphoses as a story of change (both changes to the characters, but also concerning the actual Roman empire's future). As Shakespeare might be challenging his playgoers concerning those concepts, he might also have been aspiring to write a play similar to the Metamorphoses; it is hard to determine what exactly the Metamorphoses are in all its variety, and perhaps Shakespeare wants us to feel the same about Titus Andronicus. Source: Denis Feeney's Introduction to the Metamorphoses and the original story.